[Mailman-Users] DMARC and Reply-To lines with from_is_list munging.

[Glenn Sieb]

It is not necessary to cc: me. I get list emails. Emails can go to the
list, unless you wish to take something private. Thank you.

On 5/7/14, 10:36 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> If you just want to vent, please say so.  I thought you were asking
> for help.

Then please work on your phrasing. You sounded very judgmental. "Are
you...*snip*...punishing them with a black hole" "They can always BCC
and you'll never know!"

They apparently set the max_num_recipients to 2 to help prevent spam
from making it onto the lists, as SA is fine and all, but is generally
crap for catching short URI spam.

And, again, what rules my list owners choose to have on their lists is
not my business, but frankly, I see nothing *wrong* with this, and it
makes a metric f*ckton of sense to me given the number of AOL and Yahoo
subscribers on some of the lists. Which makes this whole DMARC stuff
such an effing joke.

> If you want help, then the questions I asked are essential to doing a
> good job for your list owners.  There are two reasons for that.

If I felt what my users were asking for was unreasonable, I wouldn't
have bothered to bring it here. They'd *like* to see who's posting so if
they *choose* to reply privately they can. In the past, this was easy
enough. The From: line was there with the OP's email address. Now, as
far as I can tell, depending on the MUA the *poster* uses, there *might*
be two Reply-Tos--one with the OP email, one with the list address. But
that's not reliable, as it doesn't happen for ALL posters.

Hell, even a munged From: like:

"ges+lists at wingfoot dot org via Mailman-Users <mailman-users at python.org>"

would be a vast improvement over:

"ges+lists--- via Mailman-Users <mailman-users at python.org>"


Best,
--Glenn